Sun Ying: The Paradigm Shift in Foreign Marxist Studies
In the New Era, as the theory and practice of contemporary Chinese Marxism have achieved a series of new accomplishments, research into contemporary Chinese Marxism has increasingly highlighted its global significance and value for humanity. Consequently, this has greatly enhanced the theoretical self-confidence and sense of academic mission within research. In the study of overseas Marxism within contemporary China, the demarcation of a new historical orientation [1] and the call of the New Era’s mission have spurred and inspired scholars to holistically summarize and reflect upon the experiences and problems of overseas Marxist research. Scholars are looking back at the history of overseas Marxist studies and focusing on the transformation of research paradigms, proposing perspectives such as "contemporary significance theory," "problem-oriented theory," "center-shift theory," "role-transformation theory," and "discipline-barrier-breaking theory." Although these views differ in emphasis and expression, their core consensus lies in emphasizing that, in the New Era, overseas Marxist research must proactively break through the limitations and bottlenecks of previous paradigms. This shift towards a new paradigm aims to promote the sustainable development of the discipline while better serving the development of contemporary Chinese Marxism. The aforementioned paradigm shift has already moved from a mere appeal to a reality; it is in a state of progression and formation, evolving in harmony with the times and interweaving with practice. This is mainly manifested in three areas: in terms of theoretical content, a shift from informational translation-and-introduction research to genealogical research that traces logical paths; in terms of research methodology, a shift from text-critical research to theoretical system-construction research; and in terms of axiological goals, a shift from objective research focused on absorbing direct experience to subjective research that returns to the Marxist classics and highlights Chinese significance.
I. Shifting toward genealogical research that traces logical paths
The attributes and characteristics of the subjects in overseas Marxist research dictate that extensive and timely translation and introduction are fundamental requirements. "To know a thing is to objectify it, and only then is it possible to understand it correctly." The informational introduction of overseas Marxist trends, their representative figures, and their main viewpoints is the prerequisite for deepening research into theoretical logic, laws of thought, intellectual inspiration, and value significance; this process runs through the entire history of overseas Marxist studies. Informational translation and introduction do not only serve as the knowledge preparation that fills the initial stages of research; rather, as the subjects of study grow and research standards improve, this mode of research has exhibited new characteristics such as large-scale coordination, precision, and timeliness. Through translation and introduction, new monographs, documents, and viewpoints can be communicated and exchanged more effectively and promptly. This process also allows some classic texts to be refined and optimized during re-translation and re-publication, laying a solid foundation for more in-depth research. For example, regarding Western leftist scholars' critiques of the flaws in the capitalist system revealed by pandemic prevention and control, the Chinese academic community was able to quickly capture and translate these ideas, actively engaging in theoretical dialogue. Timely theoretical feedback was provided around keywords and core issues such as "the state of exception," "biopolitics," "ecological balance," and "digital society," offering referenceable theoretical perspectives for analyzing and solving real-world social problems, and gradually deepening into systematic reflection on related issues and their academic foundations. Furthermore, the re-translation and re-publication of classic texts such as Negative Dialectics and One-Dimensional Man, as well as the translation and introduction of works like Srnicek's Platform Capitalism and Rosa's Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity [2], have helped us more accurately and timely grasp the latest developments in overseas Marxist trends. These materials enable research to keep pace with the international frontier, quickly focus on academic hotspots, and expand the space for theoretical discourse.
However, translation-and-introduction research remains primarily focused on the "transportation" of knowledge. Although the researcher’s subjective consciousness is reflected in the selection of materials and the act of translation, the core of translation lies in being faithful to the original text and meaning. Therefore, it cannot directly achieve the research goal and value orientation of "centered on ourselves, used for our purposes" (yǐ wǒ wéi zhǔ, wèi wǒ suǒ yòng). Simultaneously, the academic community has become alert to the fact that behind the current prosperity of overseas Marxist trends, there is a tendency in some areas to deviate from the basic principles of Marxism, manifesting as instrumentalization, decentralization, superficiality, fragmentation, and deconstructionist tones. Thus, the theoretical screening of the research significance of translated subjects has become an important issue that cannot be ignored. Furthermore, the enhancement of subjective consciousness has made scholars increasingly realize the importance of a paradigm shift. Consequently, objective informational translation and introduction cannot satisfy the need for deep concern regarding research value and theoretical judgment. Only by conducting historical-theoretical research (shǐ lùn yán jiū) that traces logical paths around core problems can one judge the specific theoretical significance of the research object for the subject. This has driven the shift from translation-and-introduction research to genealogical research that traces logical-path relationships. Unlike previous "point-based" research that focused on describing and interpreting specific ideological content, the latter focuses more on being problem-oriented, reflecting on and grasping the relevant theoretical genealogies and the internal logical paths of theoretical development. This shift can be understood from two aspects.
On the one hand, overseas Marxist research increasingly emphasizes comparative studies that center on core issues, comb through theoretical relationships, clarify theoretical perspectives, and define research value and significance. As research materials on overseas Marxism become increasingly abundant and social reality becomes more complex and rapidly changing, merely translating the viewpoints of overseas Marxist works is no longer sufficient for research needs, nor does it meet the requirement of integrating theory with practice. Guided by a problem-oriented theoretical self-awareness, scholars are paying more attention to critically understanding the frontier issues and contemporary value of overseas Marxism by sorting out internal theoretical relationships. For example, regarding research on biopolitics, scholars have conducted critical comparative analyses of the biopolitical critique theories of figures such as Foucault, Agamben, Virno, Hardt, and Esposito, revealing the theoretical relationships between them. Based on this, they have proposed the inspirations and theoretical limitations of the overseas Marxist biopolitical critique trend for reflecting on the contemporary capitalist political crisis, the political condition of humanity, and modes of political existence. Regarding the genesis of theory, some scholars suggest that the biopolitical critique of contemporary leftist scholars is a product of the critique of neoliberalism, directly inheriting the intellectual legacy of the late Foucault and continuing his genealogical diagnosis of contemporary Western social governance technologies. Regarding theoretical directions, some scholars point to two paths—power control and productive resistance—as the two orientations through which contemporary leftist scholars understand the status of biopolitics from pessimistic and optimistic perspectives. Specifically, "the control-oriented biopolitical discourse represented by Foucault and Agamben reveals the control of power mechanisms over people in modern society, reflecting the rule of the logic of capital over human society. The resistance-oriented biopolitical discourse represented by Hardt and Negri reveals the possibility of producing resistant subjects, reflecting the logic of production and the possibility of breaking through alienation and producing new subjects." Regarding theoretical inspiration, scholars have utilized comparative research to discover different entry points for biopolitical research—reflecting on the contemporary significance of this issue from various angles such as power mechanisms, philosophical ontology, modernist structures, and economic operational mechanisms. This helps in achieving a profound understanding of the contemporary capitalist crisis and "provides important inspiration for returning to the context of historical materialism to examine the biopolitical critique dimension of Marx's critique of political economy."
On the other hand, overseas Marxist research is increasingly emphasizing interdisciplinary research, connecting the complementary advantages of different disciplines to extend the multi-disciplinary horizon of problem-based research and form a disciplinary genealogy of inquiry. Interdisciplinary research is both a theoretical legacy of lasting vitality given to us by overseas Marxist trends—especially the Frankfurt School—and one of the primary ways to break through the previous descriptive and interpretative focus on individual thinkers' ideas. Interdisciplinary research helps to open up discourse space and expand research perspectives; the resulting disciplinary genealogy paves a new path for reaching a theoretical consensus on problem-based research. For example, around the issue of urban and rural space in modernization, reflections on urban rights and urban justice are developed from the perspective of political-philosophical critique; investigations into the production and appropriation of capitalist space are conducted from the perspective of the critique of political economy; and dimensions such as the spatio-temporal existence and spatial imagination of human beings are explored from the perspective of philosophical culture. The focus of these various theoretical radiations proactively and consciously lands on real-world issues such as urban governance, population management, and the promotion of "spiritual civilization" [3] in China. Another example is the critical study of global financial capitalism, which is no longer analyzed solely within the discourse categories or analytical frameworks of economics or political economy. Instead, interactive analytical modes such as "political-economic philosophy" often appear, pointing out the new features of contemporary capitalist development and the various new problems they bring, such as "cultural hegemony," "new imperialism," "transnational monopoly," and "new alienation." The recently intensifying research into "moral economy" and "cultural economics," primarily represented by British Marxist studies, also reflects the trend of interdisciplinary research interweaving ethics with economics, culturology with economics, and history with economics. The conclusion drawn from this is that although contemporary financial capitalism has undergone new changes in its capital operation systems and modes of capital reproduction, it still belongs to a stage of capitalist development in its essential characteristics, meaning it has not fundamentally resolved the inherent contradictions of capitalism. This fully reflects that interactive research, by focusing closely on core issues, can highlight the concentration of problems. While breaking down disciplinary barriers, it expands multi-dimensional perspectives and multi-directional paths that cross disciplines, providing and opening up multiple possible theoretical spaces for facing real-world problems, achieving a "fusion of horizons," and forming theoretical consensus.
II. Shifting toward theoretical system-construction research that emphasizes the principle of totality
Research dominated by informational introduction often employs the methods of textual interpretation and textual criticism. Although these two methods are indispensable for overseas Marxist research—having collected a large amount of preliminary data and provided analytical tools—they have limitations. As research deepens, especially with changes in the global economic and political landscape, new developments in the global state of Marxist theoretical research, and the innovative development of contemporary Chinese Marxism, a singular focus on text-critical research poses the risk of retreating Marxist theoretical study back into the "ivory tower" of the academy. Furthermore, the increasingly prominent characteristics of decentralization and fragmentation are detrimental to providing a systematic theoretical response to real-world problems or offering well-grounded and effective theoretical strategies for analyzing and solving them. Therefore, under the ideological guidance of promoting the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and developing 21st-century Marxism and contemporary Chinese Marxism, overseas Marxist research is increasingly emphasizing the "principle of totality." It focuses on the theoretical connections between historical narratives and contemporary hotspots, as well as the pulse of the history of development. In critical research, it reflects on methods for constructing theoretical systems and achieving breakthroughs in discourse innovation. "Only by starting from this principle of totality can we understand the 'interconnectedness' and 'inclusivity' unique to Marxism as a theoretical whole that transcends disciplinary and sectoral limitations." Based on this principle, contemporary overseas Marxist research is gradually shifting from text-critical research to system-construction research.
First, through a comparative analysis of the overall intellectual characteristics of relevant schools of foreign Marxism, [scholars] have demonstrated the advantages and global significance of the "China Model" and the "China Solution" in a holistic manner. As the theoretical system of contemporary Chinese Marxism reaches increasing maturity and perfection, and as the practice of Chinese-path modernization proves successful, there is an urgent need to verify and summarize the global significance of the China Solution and Chinese discourse in responding to the problems of modernity. This must be accomplished through scholarly argumentation, internal critique of ideological theories, and in-depth analysis of logical trajectories. In this regard, foreign Marxist research focuses particularly on demonstrating and disseminating the original contributions made by contemporary Chinese Marxism to issues facing the world and humanity.
For example, in response to the ecological environment and the relationship between humanity and nature faced by global modernization, some scholars have analyzed the revolutionary significance of Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization for human ecological civilization from the dimensions of holistic logical characteristics and theoretical system innovation. Through comparative analysis, they emphasize how Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization—grounded in Marxist ecological thought—surpasses Western ecological civilization theories and achieves a creative transformation [4] of excellent traditional Chinese ecological wisdom. They demonstrate that the theory and practice of China's ecological civilization construction effectively respond to the modernity problems of the ecological environment. This highlights the practical global significance and contemporary value of Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization in both theoretical and practical innovation, as well as its contribution to building a beautiful global village where humanity coexists in harmony. In contrast, Western "Ecological Marxism" has fallen into multiple dilemmas, such as generational gaps in theoretical inheritance, a lack of theoretical innovation, and the difficulty of applying theory to practice. Some scholars argue that while Ecological Marxism critiques modern pathologies—such as technical rationality, economic rationality, the logic of capital, and consumerism—through various analytical paths and proposes solutions like promoting ecological rationality, transforming consumption habits, and constructing eco-socialism, it possesses fundamental limitations in both its mode of thinking and its practical efficacy. To this end, some scholars emphasize that the study of Western Marxist ecological critique must place greater emphasis on returning to a Marxist standpoint. It is necessary to conduct a thorough "clearing out" of existing ecological concepts to ensure that Marxist ecological theory maintains a dominant position in ecological research, thereby providing a reference for contemporary Chinese Marxist ecological studies.
Second, by looking at global trends in the development of Marxism, [scholars] have summarized the position of foreign Marxism within the history of thought and its logical trajectory, providing a critical analysis of its constructive reference value for the issues of the era and the issues of China. Research on foreign Marxism does not only deepen micro-level research by using small issues as entry points; it also takes the reflection on the great questions of the era as its mission, launching "grand narrative" studies. Currently, increasing importance is placed on taking the pulse of foreign Marxism’s position in intellectual history by centering on core issues. This allows for the summarization of experiences and insights, the formation of a Sino-Western dialogue, and the construction of theoretical discourse with Chinese characteristics.
For instance, regarding the major issues of the era—the critique of capitalism and the critique of modernity—scholars have, on the one hand, started from specific topics to continue deepening critical research on "digital capitalism," "accelerationism," "biopolitics," and "new imperialism." These studies examine the modern condition of the individual and changes in modern modes of production and life, reflecting on the inspirations and lessons found in foreign Marxist resources for identifying and analyzing problems, thereby highlighting the significant value of Chinese-path modernization. On the other hand, some scholars emphasize the comparative analysis and relational study of Western Marxist philosophy, Marxist philosophy, and modern Western philosophy to reflect on the uniqueness of Western Marxist theories of modernity and their beneficial heuristic value for China’s socialist modernization. Through holistic research, some scholars have summarized the intellectual characteristics of Western Marxist critiques of modernity: in terms of philosophical tone, they shifted from the Enlightenment ideal of "escaping from tutelage" advocated by early modern Western philosophy to a vigorous exposure of the "degeneration of modernity"; in terms of the theme of critique, they shifted from the Marxist "aufhebung [5] of capital" to a "total critique of modern society"; and in terms of value orientation, they shifted from the postmodernist advocacy of "deconstructing meta-narratives" to an unremitting pursuit of the "unfinished project." [6] They further argue that Western Marxist critiques of modernity characterize the human metaphysical spirit of the Western philosophical tradition on one hand, and highlight the dialectical, realistic, and open theoretical qualities of Marxist modernity theory on the other. This demonstrates a "synthetic-creative" orientation, while also critiquing the fundamental limitation of deviating from the principle of the unity of theory and practice. Consequently, they advocate for a new explanatory model of the dialectics of the temporal and spatial dimensions of modernity, attempting to construct a characteristic discourse for the theory of the critique of modernity.
Third, [scholars are] constructing and perfecting a unique paradigmatic system and applying it to the study of foreign Marxism. Constructing an analytical paradigm is more difficult than interpreting intellectual viewpoints or theoretical systems; it requires a deep grasp of the internal evolutionary laws of theoretical logic and the use of a mature conceptual discourse to build a paradigm system that is law-governed, somewhat universal, and logically self-consistent. Foreign Marxism has provided many intellectual resources and methodological legacies in terms of conceptual categories, logical layouts, systemic construction, and discursive paradigms. In particular, its "pulse-taking and diagnosis" of the modernization problems of capitalist industrial civilization from a philosophical horizon and discourse has created conceptual categories such as "alienation of consumption," "mechanisms of character repression," "technological ideology," "the society of the spectacle," "the production of space," "hyperreality," "post-truth," "new imperialism," and "biopolitics." It has built discursive systems and logical frameworks such as "reification theory," "Social Critical Theory," "the theory of communicative action," "recognition theory," and "historical-geographical materialism." These provide inspiration for our contemporary Marxist research in discourse construction and theoretical studies. This constructive research is also an important indicator of the shift toward "self-construction" and the construction of an "original discourse system" emphasized by scholars as foreign Marxist research reaches its current stage. Continual efforts along this research path are gradually forming representative and unique academic traditions, large-scale academic teams, and systematic academic outputs.
III. The Paradigmatic Shift toward State-of-the-Field Research Returning to Marxist Classics
The assertion of the "end of Western Marxism" [7] did not signal the disappearance of Marxism in Western capitalist society. On the contrary, as the problems of capitalist society have multiplied and the contradictions in its economic structure have intensified, contemporary foreign Marxist trends have continued to launch theoretical challenges against the capitalist system in new and diverse forms. Consequently, a multi-dimensional pattern of theoretical development has increasingly emerged. This "mixed blessing" in the development of foreign Marxist theory has alerted Chinese scholars of foreign Marxism. Influenced by "post-theory" [8] thinking, some contemporary schools such as so-called "Neo-Marxism" and "Post-Marxist trends" harbor misunderstandings regarding the basic principles of Marxism. Furthermore, representatives of traditional Western Marxism, such as the Frankfurt School, have partially lost the theoretical aims and value interests present at the founding of Western Marxism as the times have evolved and theory has taken a "political-philosophical turn." There is a growing danger that the interpretation of Marxism by contemporary foreign Marxist trends will become increasingly "distorted" due to multiple value standpoints, making it crucial to discern the essence of foreign Marxism. Some scholars argue that "we should currently face up to the end of Western Marxist schools and the contemporary changes in the Western Marxist tradition, accurately position the Western Marxist tradition within the entire history of Marxist theory, reveal its limitations, overcome various 'pseudo-enthusiasms' [9] in research, and consciously serve the theoretical exploration and effective dissemination of the China Path and the construction of Chinese modernity."
The study of foreign Marxism requires a new scholarly examination and foundational critique [10] combined with the development of theory and practice. This new theoretical requirement poses a fundamental challenge to previous "object-oriented" research that merely derived intellectual inspiration directly from textual resources. It drives the focus of research toward specific problems, emphasizing the importance of state-of-the-field analysis [11] characterized by subjective self-awareness—integrating the global with the targeted, the universal with the particular, and the logical with the realistic. Therefore, on the one hand, regarding the "chaos" of foreign Marxism in the contemporary era—marked by a crisis of consensus and the dilemma of fragmentation—and the reflection on why it increasingly falls into the traps of relativism and nihilism, we must return to the classic texts of Marxism. Through a retrospective of theoretical history, we must reflect on the connection between the development of the times and theoretical changes, critically examine the deviation of foreign Marxist trends from the basic principles of Marxism, and "strengthen the foundation and nourish the roots" [12] for the contemporary interpretation of Marxist theory. On the other hand, the paradigmatic shift toward pedigree-style research [13] that traces logical trajectories and toward theoretical system construction also requires using the classic Marxist texts as a coordinate system. Combined with the theoretical achievements of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, and through comparative research on the development and characteristics of Chinese and foreign Marxist theories, we must explore the space for theoretical dialogue around core themes (such as the critique of capitalism and the path of social-civilizational development) and reflect on the global significance of contemporary Chinese Marxism. In short, the study of foreign Marxism—with the promotion of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and the development of contemporary Chinese Marxism as its guiding ideology and research purpose—emphasizes the importance of: inheriting and developing the authentic meaning and spirit of Marxist theory based on a return to classic texts; exercising theoretical confidence and subjective self-awareness; excavating the contemporary value of classic theories; distinguishing foreign trends based on classic texts; and innovating Chinese doctrines. This has inaugurated a paradigmatic shift in state-of-the-field research toward "returning to the classics" in the New Era, following the "Return to Marx" fever at the turn of the century.
First, there is a return to Marxist classics, continuously drawing nourishment from the fundamental principles of Marxism to analyze new changes in contemporary capitalism and to scientifically judge the future path of capitalist modern civilization. The critique of the problems of capitalist modernity and the transcendence of capitalist modern civilization constitute one of the shared historical backgrounds, logical dimensions, and value orientations between contemporary Chinese Marxist studies and studies of foreign Marxism. The theory of the critique of capitalist modernity has logically "become a theoretical intersection of common concern for both Western Marxist and Chinese Marxist research." This has built an important bridge for theoretical dialogue between Chinese and foreign Marxism. The more theoretical dialogue is needed, the more the value and significance of returning to classic texts is emphasized. Consequently, as the cyclical crises of capitalism returned in the 21st century—accompanied by a succession of extensive and far-reaching social crises—a worldwide wave of returning to classic Marxist texts has emerged, triggering sustained reflection among scholars on the scientific and contemporary nature of the Marxist critique of capitalism.
The lingering negative impact of the 2008 global financial crisis on the world economy has sparked a "return to Capital" that continues to this day. Not only have foreign scholars returned to the text of Capital to glean wisdom and produce new works focusing on contemporary Western social issues—such as the wealth gap and unbalanced geospatial development—as well as ideological critiques of neoliberalism; but Chinese scholars have also synchronized their research with foreign counterparts. As the results of the editing and publication of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2) [14] gradually emerge, Chinese scholars have carried out theoretical research and practical critiques by returning to Capital and other Marxist classics in light of the new conditions and characteristics of global capitalist development. Especially on the theme of the critique of capitalism, Chinese scholars have generally returned to Marxist standpoints, viewpoints, and methods to examine it objectively. One could say that returning to Marxist classics is the primary adherence and core trend of contemporary global Marxist studies. Only by returning to the Marxist texts themselves to seek the "true scriptures" [15] can we more accurately and effectively achieve the Sinicization and modernization of Marxist theory, and fundamentally gain insight into and conduct in-depth investigations of various "maladies of modernity" currently affecting other countries—such as financial crises, new forms of capital, refugee and immigration issues, populism, anti-globalization, and ecological imbalances.
Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Marxism is a continuously developing and open theory that always stands at the forefront of the times. Marx repeatedly cautioned people that Marxist theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action, and it must develop along with changes in practice. The history of the development of Marxism is a history of Marx, Engels, and their successors continuously developing based on the times, practice, and the evolution of understanding; it is a history of continuously absorbing all the outstanding ideological and cultural achievements in human history to enrich itself. Therefore, Marxism is able to maintain its wonderful youth, continuously explore new topics raised by the development of the times, and respond to new challenges facing human society." Following the path of "returning to Marx" to trace the source [16], finding the road to liberation that breaks through capitalist modern civilization from the "origin" of Marxist theory, engaging in Sino-Western theoretical dialogue, and reflecting on the world significance of the socialist form of civilization—these are the contemporary tasks shared by the current global camp of Marxist research and are thus important research directions that can gather theoretical consensus.
Second, there is the in-depth study of the classic texts of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, summarizing experiences from the developmental processes of Chinese Marxist theory and practice to face the future. In recent years, centered around major historical milestones—such as the 200th anniversary of Marx's birth and the 170th anniversary of the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 2018—domestic and international theoretical circles have paid tribute to the great revolutionary mentor of the proletariat by returning to classic Marxist texts and the Communist Manifesto to conduct contemporary interpretations. Similarly, during important commemorations such as the centenary of the "October Revolution" in 2017 and the 150th anniversary of Lenin's birth in 2020, the academic community produced a series of scholarly achievements to honor Lenin, the inheritor and developer of Marxism and the first proletarian revolutionary leader to lead the masses in practicing Marxism.
For those who hold Marxist beliefs, these historical milestones possess special significance and radiate a unique, dazzling light of truth across the land of China. The 40th anniversary of Reform and Opening-up, the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, and the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China highlighted the magnificent achievements in socialist revolution, construction, reform, and development achieved by the Party leading the people under the guidance of Marxist theory. These achievements have been noticed by the world, proving through indisputable historical facts that Marxism and socialism did not fail China, and China did not fail Marxism and socialism. The success of Sinicized and modernized Marxism in theory and practice, alongside the rise of the Chinese nation and the prosperity of the motherland, has continuously created one triumph after another for Marxist truth on Chinese soil, demonstrating the powerful vitality of Marxism.
Meanwhile, Western society has become more deeply mired in the quagmire of capitalism. This objective fact has prompted foreign scholars to pay more attention to China's success, the crystallized theoretical fruits of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, and the fine traditional Chinese cultural genes and the Chinese spirit embedded deep within. Chinese discourse is going global, providing an important opportunity to promote Sino-foreign exchange and the development of global Marxist theory and practice. Regarding this, foreign Marxist research focuses on the one hand on returning to the classic texts of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism to clarify Chinese Marxist theoretical innovations, striving to conduct research on foreign trends of thought with China as the center, "incorporating the study of China and its relationship with the world into the theoretical horizon as an important dimension, and seeking solutions to human problems within the interactive relationship between China and the world."
On the other hand, it emphasizes engaging in active dialogue with foreign China studies to deepen the comparative study of Chinese and Western Marxism. For instance, this involves academic dialogue with contemporary Western Leftist scholars who are influenced by Mao Zedong Thought or who pay particular attention to China’s practices in revolution, construction, and reform. Through theoretical comparison and historico-theoretical analysis, this deepens the international communication of Chinese discourse and promotes the "going global" of Chinese Marxist theoretical discourse. By "telling China's story well," foreign scholars can more accurately and directly receive the original meaning of Chinese Marxist theoretical innovation and the true intent of Chinese wisdom, avoiding prejudice and misunderstanding while forming an equal exchange of ideas. Especially regarding the problem of global modernity, fully exchanging academic viewpoints and reaching a consensus on Marxist positions while "seeking common ground while reserving differences" [17] to jointly promote the significant development and common progress of 21st-century world Marxism has become an important direction for the comparative study of Chinese and foreign Marxism, possessing significant theoretical value.
In summary, it is evident that research on foreign Marxism has now fully entered a period of paradigm shift. Especially since the New Era, the self-awareness and theoretical effectiveness of this paradigm shift have become more distinct. Its overall characteristic is the transition from "objective" translation and interpretive research toward "subjective" dialogical research. The former focused primarily on compiling materials, interpreting individual viewpoints, and introducing schools of thought—characterized by texts leading the questions. The latter emphasizes conducting historico-theoretical analysis from perspectives such as the history of concepts, ideas, and civilizations, centered on core issues. It penetrates into the deep pulse and internal reflection of logical paths and laws of thinking, seeking research ideas that help respond to Chinese problems, tell China's story well, and innovate Chinese discourse. A core issue of focus here is the critique of capitalist modernity, reflecting a basic research approach guided by Marxism, centered on Sinicized and modernized Marxism, and utilizing foreign Marxism as a resource.
Guided by the requirement for innovation in the disciplinary, academic, and discourse systems [18] put forward by the major proposition of the "Two Combinations" [19] in the New Era, and based on the aforementioned paradigm shift, its basic characteristics and logic, the theoretical path for foreign Marxist research aims to continue focusing on: first, research themes more closely centered on the critique of capitalist modernity and the exploration of the road to human social liberation and forms of civilization; second, a theoretical direction that highlights the "grand narrative" logic of historico-theoretical research, investigating the core themes of the era from a historical perspective using a "Big View of History" [20]; and third, a theoretical goal of strengthening the innovative construction and global dissemination of Chinese discourse, enhancing the world influence of contemporary Chinese Marxism, and continuously projecting a powerful Chinese voice.